100 likes | 223 Views
ERMing for a Consortium: Are We There Yet? (Setting the Stage…). Angela Riggio, UCLA Electronic Resources Interest Group ALA Annual Conference Anaheim, CA June 28, 2008. What is a consortium?. Defined by: Geographic location (by country, state, etc.)
E N D
ERMing for a Consortium: Are We There Yet?(Setting the Stage…) Angela Riggio, UCLA Electronic Resources Interest Group ALA Annual Conference Anaheim, CA June 28, 2008
What is a consortium? • Defined by: • Geographic location (by country, state, etc.) • Membership (PALINET, SOLINET, Amigos, etc.) • Private network of colleges or universities (Tri-Colleges, Claremont Colleges, etc.) • Public network of colleges or universities (California Digital Library, California State University, name-a-state-u, etc.) • Any self-defined network
A bit of ERM history … • ERMI Report (2004) did not “adequately” address consortial requirements • Functional requirement 19 “Search, browse, and retrieve records by attributes unique to e-resources, such as… consortium…” • Functional requirement 45.1 …“record the name of the consortium, relevant notes, and, optionally, the names of other participating institutions…” • Functional requirement 45.2 …“store name and contact information for key consortial contacts…”
ERMI Data Elements • Consortial Agreement Indicator • Consortium Name • Consortium Alternate Name • Consortial Fund Contribution • Consortium Note • Consortial Issues Note • Consortium Address • Consortium Identifier • Consortium Participation Identifier • Contacts/Contact Info • Number of Consortial Participants
ERMI Consortium Data Structure • Identify • Name • Contacts • Notes • Partner information • Other library IDs • Names • IP ranges • Notes • Bridge to • Consortial participants • Acquisitions information • Fund contribution
What else do we need from a “Consortial ERMS?” • It depends: • Multiple views; multiple searching options • Robust customer-defined reporting • SUSHI compliance and support for other standards • Member voting mechanisms • Cost share, cost savings, relevant date data • Flexibility to handle consortial ‘quirkiness’ • An effective way to communicate!
Local history… • UCLA: developed and released home-grown ERM in 2001 (ERDb) • Quickly intercepted; focus on public discovery • More hits than catalog • Source of frustration for users; yet still used • Functionality lacking on staff side • Little to no improvements made since its release
Local history… • 2004: University of California held statewide ERM meeting • 2005: RFP issued • 2006: decision made for all 10 campuses • Spring 2006-Spring 2007: statewide ERM Implementation Team charged • 2007: UC University Librarians halt ERM implementation
What next? • No coordinated ERM effort on UC level • Monitor developments in ERMS • Make decisions in tandem with the California Digital Library • Find creative solutions in the interim
In the interim… • Resurrect the “old standard?” • Use “ancient” forms of communication? • Investigate Web applications such as wikis, blogs, etc.?